Something other than the mere shape of the terrain. Tree stumps perhaps, something to suggest the actual surface of the earth.

Do you have any evidence that the images do not show actual terrain?

Rivers run underground too so I would expect them to look like rivers on seismic imaging, but really nothing more than a channel that water flows through which could just as well be underground as above.

Actually, underground rivers (which is a misnomer, by the way), would not be seen by this method, partly because they do not reflect sound waves in the same way and they are too small. They do nor form wide valleys such as what we see. I also seriously doubt that they would form dendritic patterns such as the one in the picture that you've seen. They tend to follow rock structure.

The absurdity of it all blows me away, sorry. Wish I could get it across better.

I've noticed that you are easily blown away.

ETA: This is all an artifact of arguing from ignorance. You don't know much at all about your flood, or what it would produce or its effects, do you?

The reason you are having so much trouble here and in many other threads is that you are vastly ignorant of the subjects on which you are opining. It is a willful and self-imposed ignorance.

Your head is stuffed so full of dogmatic beliefs that you won't, indeed can't, see something that contradicts those beliefs. This leads you to all sorts of conjectures that you "know" are correct, and you simply can't see why they are wrong even though you are presented with massive amounts of evidence that shows how and why they are wrong.

Most of us here are ignorant in fields outside of our specialties, but we endeavor to learn something about a given field before we start posting.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

The Great Unconformity is like the disturbances that occurred after all the strata were laid down, ...

What disturbances are those?

You really don't ever read in context, do you? What's the point of talking to you if you can't follow the discussion? The Grand Canyon itself for the main one, the scouring off of the Kaibab Plateau, the cutting of the stairs of the Grand Staircase, Zion Canyon too, all that sort of thing that occurred after hundreds of millions of years of nice neat horizontal layering.

... it is not like the erosion between the layers.

How is it different? Please explain.

The erosion is an itty bitty bit of displaced sediment seen here and there, hardly visible from a distance, or even close up in many cases, and having no effect on the horizontality of the strata. The disturbances I'm talking about that came after the strata were in place displaced a lot of stuff, built mountains, carved out the canyons, moved tons of sediment, and in the case of the Great Unconformity tilted a whole slab of layers.

I think it did occur after the strata were laid down, but even if it occurred in the Precambrian time frame as you all think it did, it still leaves big questions about why there was such a huge long interval afterward when no such disturbances were occurring, hundreds of millions of years of placid surface conditions on this earth.

Why is that a problem? What principle do you use to say that any particular area must be disturbed or deformed?

1. Common sense.2. The appearance of the surface of the earth now.

I guess that doesn't bother you, as I keep noting.

I have yet to see a reason why it should bother me. Is there a law that says every place on earth must be disturbed every few thousand years?

Considering the immense scale of the disturbances I'm talking about it's absolutely amazing nothing like them ever occurred during hundreds of millions of years of horizontal stacking of sediments. Mountains building, canyons cutting, so on and so forth. Sure you can rationalize it all away. You can and you do. But it's absurd. Just about NO activity for all those hundreds of millions of years, except a little dribbly bit of "erosion" here and there between layers, and then this massive massive amount of tectonic disturbance. Oh, just a big nothing, no problem.

I wish I could say it clearer about the salt layers. All the cross sections show sedimentary layers above the salt in perfectly typical arrangements as the strata normally form, except that all of them follow the sag of the salt layer. The way I would interpret this, of course, is that they were all laid down in the Flood, perfectly horizontal as usual, and then the salt got wet and started rising and the whole stack deformed along with it.

So, how do you deposit these salt layers in the middle of a global flood?

I don't know. I've suggested perhaps the salt leached out of sedimentary layers after they were laid down. But that's changing the subject. The problem I'm presenting here is a problem for YOUR scenario.

But on the theory of deposition over millions of years I have to suppose that the salt didn't start rising until all those other layers were in place above it. Is that the accepted timing?

Could be. However, the salt is probably still rising in some areas even though there is active sedimentation in the Gulf.

Sedimentation wouldn't stop it. But that sedimentation in the Gulf is also not depositing horizontally as it should, but following the slope of the sag of the salt layer as usual, which suggests that something else is going on. How long does it take for the salt to rise? Because of a disaster or near-disaster with a growing salt dome in Texas that I heard about a while back I suspect it doesn't take anything like millions of years.

There is no other way to account for their all following the contour of the sag, ....

That's not the point, however. No one says this did not happen.

That what did not happen? Do you have any clue to what I'm talking about?

... except that one does have to wonder how completely solidified rock could deform in such a plastic-looking way, one would think it would break.

They do. However, under the proper conditions of temperature, confining pressure and rate of deformation, all rocks are plastic.

Easy I'm sure to assume the proper conditions pertain wherever you see such plasticity in rocks.

But then if the salt began deforming and rising at any point before all those upper layers were in place, the usual timing of that process being many millions of years, then only those already in place would deform along with it and any layers deposited above that would fill in the sag and have the flat horizontal surface they always have.

If the rise stops that is what we would see.

It has nothing to do with the rise, this is about the timing of the laying down of the layers.

I'm probably not getting this said clearly enough. Your answers really didn't address anything I had in mind.

What we are asking is how the salt was deposited in the middle of a global flood.

No, that is not the question. The question is how the standard sedimentary strata could deposit over a sagging surface over millions of years and follow the sag contours rather than filling it in and presenting the usual horizontal flat surface. Since this isn't happening on any cross section I've seen I conclude no millions of years are involved at all, that this proves that the time frame for the deposition of the layers was much much shorter and probably occurred only a few thousand years ago.

ETA: This is all an artifact of arguing from ignorance. You don't know much at all about your flood, or what it would produce or its effects, do you?

I know a lot more about it than the debunkers do. And as for arguing from ignorance, no doubt, but you are arguing from entrenched bias that can't see reality.

As always happens in discussions with you I find you obnoxious, unclear and unwilling to communicate. Apparently you are very touchy about being insulted. I'm sorry about that, but I get very tired of trying to talk to someone who has your attitude.

You don't know much at all about your flood, or what it would produce or its effects, do you?

I know a lot more about it than the debunkers do.

How could you know? You keep saying that the Flood produced conditions that were different from anything we can know by observing present-day processes. If we can't know about the processes during the Flood, how can you know?

You're not getting your information from the Bible. You're making up things like tsunamis and asteroids that are thoroughly non-Biblical.

You really don't ever read in context, do you? What's the point of talking to you if you can't follow the discussion?

Well, the way that you have of jumping around, it is kind of hard to follow.

The Grand Canyon itself for the main one, the scouring off of the Kaibab Plateau, the cutting of the stairs of the Grand Staircase, Zion Canyon too, all that sort of thing that occurred after hundreds of millions of years of nice neat horizontal layering.

So what does that have to do with the Great Unconformity?

You are not making much sense here.

The erosion is an itty bitty bit of displaced sediment seen here and there, hardly visible from a distance, or even close up in many cases, and having no effect on the horizontality of the strata. The disturbances I'm talking about that came after the strata were in place displaced a lot of stuff, built mountains, carved out the canyons, moved tons of sediment, and in the case of the Great Unconformity tilted a whole slab of layers.

How does the erosion of the canyon have anything to do with tilting the Precambrian rocks? Why did the younger rocks not become tilted also?

1. Common sense.2. The appearance of the surface of the earth now.

Those are not principles or laws.

How about may be some evidence?

Considering the immense scale of the disturbances I'm talking about it's absolutely amazing nothing like them ever occurred during hundreds of millions of years of horizontal stacking of sediments. Mountains building, canyons cutting, so on and so forth. Sure you can rationalize it all away. You can and you do. But it's absurd. Just about NO activity for all those hundreds of millions of years, except a little dribbly bit of "erosion" here and there between layers, and then this massive massive amount of tectonic disturbance. Oh, just a big nothing, no problem.

So, it's all based on the principle of personal amazement by Faith.

I'm sure that will pass peer review...

I don't know. I've suggested perhaps the salt leached out of sedimentary layers after they were laid down. But that's changing the subject. The problem I'm presenting here is a problem for YOUR scenario.

Why is that? Because you say so? How can you say that based on "I don't know"?

Sedimentation wouldn't stop it.

Who said it did?

But that sedimentation in the Gulf is also not depositing horizontally as it should, but following the slope of the sag of the salt layer as usual, which suggests that something else is going on. How long does it take for the salt to rise? Because of a disaster or near-disaster with a growing salt dome in Texas that I heard about a while back I suspect it doesn't take anything like millions of years.

Sure weathering and erosion can occur rapidly. What did that have to do with rise of the diapir and how long it took? Actually sedimentation does occur horizontally at the macro-scale. What happens afterward is not sedimentation.

That what did not happen? Do you have any clue to what I'm talking about?

Actually, I'm not sure. You seem to bounce around a lot.

Easy I'm sure to assume the proper conditions pertain wherever you see such plasticity in rocks.

If the evidence supports it, yes.

It has nothing to do with the rise, this is about the timing of the laying down of the layers.

Well, if the diapirs do not rise, then there are no relative depressions for sediments to fill in. What are you talking about?

No, that is not the question.

How did I know you were going to say that?

The question is how the standard sedimentary strata could deposit over a sagging surface over millions of years and follow the sag contours rather than filling it in and presenting the usual horizontal flat surface.

Maybe it wasn't sagging at first...

And why do you say this isn't/hasn't happened?..

If there is one thing I'd like for people to know it is that things are usually not as simple as we would like them to be.

In any case, I'm not seeing the relevance of this part of the discussion. Please explain.

Since this isn't happening on any cross section I've seen I conclude no millions of years are involved at all, that this proves that the time frame for the deposition of the layers was much much shorter and probably occurred only a few thousand years ago.

Why does it have to be a short period? You do realize that most cross sections have some simplification in them, especially when rendered at a very gross scale such as the ones I've seen you post here.

Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.

Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.

Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.

After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.

HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

And as for arguing from ignorance, no doubt, but you are arguing from entrenched bias that can't see reality.

If you say so, Faith.

As always happens in discussions with you I find you obnoxious, unclear and unwilling to communicate. Apparently you are very touchy about being insulted.

Oh, not at all. I've been insulted by pros on this and other boards. I just don't like it when you defame generations of people who dedicated their lives to learning the truth. And you, without even a basic college course in earth science.

I'm sorry about that, but I get very tired of trying to talk to someone who has your attitude.

Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.

Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.

Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.

There is a basic geometry problem here. By definition, an underground river would be closed at the top. In other words, it has a vertical limitation. Otherwise, it would not be underground.

On the other hand the visuals shown indicate that the river valleys open up wider in the upward direction. This would be true of all canyons that don't have vertical walls.

I'm sure that you don't need an explanation of this, but it appears that someone in this forum needs some basic instruction.

After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.

I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.

I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

I make logical sense in plain English. I am not interested in scientific accuracy, only in getting across some perfectly logical observations. It's not hard to get with some good will and some suspension of the obsessive pedantry you all take for science. But as usual it's a lost cause as I knew anyway.

I make logical sense in plain English. I am not interested in scientific accuracy, only in getting across some perfectly logical observations. It's not hard to get with some good will and some suspension of the obsessive pedantry you all take for science. But as usual it's a lost cause as I knew anyway.

We know you aren't interested in scientific accuracy, but rather scriptural purity.

But you are making many "perfectly logical observations" which are categorically and demonstrably wrong.

Scientists are trained to root out errors, so it would not be logical to expect us to just blindly accept your statements and not to attempt to correct the errors we see. This is a debate board, after all.

What you see as "obsessive pedantry" is just the result of our addressing the same errors time and again, year after year, with no observable effect. It is amazing that the posters here are as patient as they are.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.